Comparing telehealth-based and clinic-based group cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with depression and anxiety: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this pilot study was to demonstrate reliable adherence to a group cognitive behavioral (CBT) therapy protocol when delivered using on-line video conferencing as compared with face-to-face delivery of group CBT. A secondary aim was to show comparability of changes in subject depression inventory scores between on-line and face-to-face delivery of group CBT. METHODS: We screened 31 individuals, 18 of whom met the criteria for a DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition) diagnosis of mood and/or anxiety disorder. All qualifying participants had the necessary equipment (computer, webcam, Internet) for participation in the study, but could exercise their preference for either the on-line or face-to-face format. Eighteen completed the 13 weekly session intervention program (ten face-to-face; eight video conferencing). We coded adherence to protocol in both intervention formats and generated pre-post changes in scores on the Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) for each participant. RESULTS: Application of the CBT protocol coding system showed reliable adherence to the group CBT intervention protocol in both delivery formats. Similarly, qualitative analysis of the themes in group discussion indicated that both groups addressed similar issues. Pre-post intervention scores for the BDI-II were comparable across the two delivery formats, with 60% of participants in each group showing a positive change in BDI-II severity classification (eg, from moderate to low symptoms). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that group CBT could be delivered in a technology-supported environment (on-line video conferencing) and can meet the same professional practice standards and outcomes as face-to-face delivery of the intervention program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".